Born To The Purple
Here's a Dennis Prager article claiming America has two irreconcilable sides, the red and the blue. He's been beating this drum for a while, but I don't think his evidence is too convincing. I know we have solid conservatives and solid liberals, and I have plenty of friends who so strongly identify with the Democrats or Republicans that the idea of voting for the other side nauseates them.
But when it comes to actual issues, most people I know are part column A, part column B.
Almost all of Prager's examples are weak, exaggerating our differences. Let's look at a few:
The left wants America not only to have a secular government, but to have a secular society. The left feels that if people want to be religious, they should do so at home and in their houses of prayer, but never try to inject their religious values into society. The right wants America to continue to be what it has always been ["what it has always been"--he can't help but argue even when he makes comparisons] – a Judeo-Christian society with a largely secular government (that is not indifferent to religion). These opposing visions explain, for example, their opposite views concerning nondenominational prayer in school.
"Nondenominational"? Prager generally tries to make his side (the right, in case you were wondering) sound more reasonable, but if this is the battleground, it sounds to me like we're arguing over a much smaller patch than you'd see historically: neither side wants an official state religion (as opposed to many of our enemies, and even some of Europe) and, if Prager is to be believed, no one even wants a public prayer where you actually pray as you would in your place of worship.
The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The right subscribes to the American formula, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable.
This is news to me. 1) I don't really see that many leftists using that slogan of the French Revolution. 2) Perhaps the French Revolution has a bad name now to a lot of conservatives, but its principles, even if they haven't always been honored, don't strike me as being so different from that of the American Revolution. 3) Equality has long been an American principle. 4) I've known a fair number of conservatives who have a far more circumscribed concept of "the pursuit of happiness" than many liberals do.
The left envisions an egalitarian society. The right does not.
America is one of the most egalitarian societies of all, and has been since its founding. Certainly we're less class conscious than most of Europe, and Americans generally like it that way.
The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions.
This is socialism. The left may move us closer to it, but most of the American left would still stop far short of it. (I might add unless Prager has some quotes from the left where they say they want everyone to have similar amounts, and not just sufficient amounts, he should refrain from reading minds.)
The left wants to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples for the first time in history [I like how he can't stop himself from adding those last six words]. The right wants gays to have equal rights, but to keep marriage defined as man-woman. This, too, constitutes an irreconcilable divide.
Once again, we see the ground shifting, making us wonder just how deep the division is. Fifty years ago, presumably when we didn't have an irreconcilable divide, there was no question of gay marriage, or even civil unions. The main question about gays would have been should they receive counseling or a prison sentence?
So if both liberal and conservative opinion can change so much, maybe it won't be so irreconcilable for conservatives to accept gay marriage after all. (And I have a dream that some day both conservatives and liberals will support free markets.)
posted by LAGuy @ 12:20 AM
26 Comments:
Thank you.
But what exactly are "free markets"?- free from government control, free from manipulation by the economically powerful?
It's times like this that I love this blog. Nice analysis, LAGuy.
NE'Guy, here's a good working definition for us to start from. Note that government control can make a market "freer" -- e.g. by prohibiting deceptive practices or providing an unbiased arbiter for the enforcement of bargains. It can also make markets "less free" through the imposition of taxes, which are inherently coercive. The paradox (of sorts) is that the latter, market-unfreeing force is required to pay for the former market-freeing forces. So there will always be trade-offs. Dr. Rothbard's definition also doesn't speak to those people who are incapable of participating intelligently in such free exchanges, either because of age or infirmity (mental or physical). And it surely doesn't deal with the issue of inheritance. But I digress....
Thanks for the definition QG. My point, which I didn't make, is that "free markets" mean different things to different people and very likely people shooting at each other each think they are defending the "free market"
Sorry- forgot
Cf. Judge R. Posner on Fairness and Justice
The biggest difference between the two sides is that the right believes in equality of opportunity and the left believes in equality of result.
Those two are fundamentally incompatible.
The Blue-Red divide is 90% media fabrication. You look at those big maps with the states in different colors and after a while it starts to look like it means more than it does.
Meanwhile, we have "Card check", a truly antidemocratic, anti free market, power grab by the left supporting unions. Dream on, while you sing cumbaya, very nasty and focused people on the left are about to take and hold power.
Well, really free markets would seem to require total transparency and total information by all participants. Thus, the potential 'sides' mentioned by NEguy are only partially relevant.
My problem is not that the Left wants more government control to prevent "manipulation by the economically powerful" (although I don't see anyone who can seriously argue that *any* amount of government control can prevent "manipulation by the (insert reason) powerful" after looking at, say, the old USSR, Cuba, North Korea, or China), it's that the Left appears to want government control for its own sake, or for the sake of imposing its vision on non-believers.
In fact, the only two sides I've ever seen are those who want to force you to do things their way and those who don't. I prefer the latter.
May I respectfully submit that, if you do not believe that the French and American revolutions were "that different," that you need a very serious refresher course in the history of both and the political ideals animating each? I mildly disagree with you re: Prager but your comments about the revolutions stopped me dead in my tracks.
If you take the time to learn more about the animating philosophy of modern Conservatism and how it ties in with Classical Liberalism (as opposed to modern Liberalism / Progressivism) you might see far more in the way of differences than you are willing to grant at this moment.
FYI, Prager is a reformed Democrat.
FYI #2, Prager's reference to the French Revolution argument is obviously a response to some other intellectual's argument, as the event is not in the national debate lexicon.
FYI #3, you and Prager are using egalitarian in two different contexts.
FYI #4, The Republican incompetence of governing per the ideals they campaigned on has contributed more to a purple nation than if they had maintained their conservative principles in their governance. It is a division created at the national party level and enforced by the media so that no candidate can pull the other party's voters. They need a polarized America, divided along party talking points, otherwise they might lose power to someone who might do something constructive for the country with the power we entrust to them.
I think you miss Prager's argument all together. He refers to the political left and political right and points out the differences that drive them. He makes a major distinction consistently on his show between the "left" and democrats. To be a democrat does not mean to be of the left...necessarily. It's just that the Democratic leadership is OF the left, not necessarily most of the members of the Democratic party.
A prayer isn't a state establishment of religion. When the state begins appointing imams, then I'll worry. The First Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means, LAGuy.
But what exactly are "free markets"?- free from government control, free from manipulation by the economically powerful?
This is where the left tries to slide in their definition of "free market".
"manipulation by the economically powerful" can only mean one thing in the context of a free market--that they use their influence with the government to distort the rules in their favor, or they hire armed thugs or something.
Simply being economically powerful does not "manipulate the market"--for example, if I am a big store I buy in bulk and can offer lower prices than a smaller competitor. I have advantages that someone else has not, but this has nothing to do with whether the market is free or not. The left would have you believe that it is the same, so that government has to distort the market to protect you.
And thus they corrupt speach so that words mean their opposite.
TO: LAGuy, et al.
RE: Irreconcilability, A Case In Point
So if both liberal and conservative opinion can change so much, maybe it won't be so irreconcilable for conservatives to accept gay marriage after all. -- LAGuy
So, if you favor homosexual marriage. Do you favor homosexual adoption of children?
If so, please reconcile THIS for me....
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. -- Some Wag, around 2000 years ago
And you don't think a homosexual couple would be teaching an adopted child how to be 'offended'?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Devil is ALWAYS in the details.]
TO: All
RE: Heh
Based on the comments I'm seeing here, it looks like LAGuy is taking a pasting.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Go to, fellows! Go to!]
Appreciate your thoughts. I don't buy into the red/blue dichotomy for other reasons, but I'm not sure his comparison of the French Revolution to the American Revolution accurately reflects one of the central differences and, thus, leaves you unable to respond to it.
The equality of the French Revolution was not equality chosen by the people or achieved through their choices or charity, but equality forced by the state. It was a revolution of the state itself, breaking all of the bounds that had formerly constrained centralized state power (such as the Catholic church and the aristrocracy) with the goal of using this centralized power to empower the "Citizens", or the French people. In contrast, the American Revolution was a rebellion of the people to gain power over the state to get the state to go away and let them make (more of) their own choices. In fact, when Washington raised taxes they even rebelled against him to try to get him to go away (though without success in that instance). While the slogans don't sound much different, a comparison of the driving ideology behind them (or at least of the popular mindsets at the time) does draw certain allusions to modern schools of thought.
I have read some persuasive and adamant apologists for the goals of the French Revolution, but I have never taken seriously anyone who says its methods were a success. Not only did its material goals fail as the aristocracy was replaced by the imperial class (rich getting richer through more government regulation, anyone?) while the poor simply traded their terrible agrarian quagmire for the even less attractive position of cannon fodder for the first great national conscription (which could only be achieved by this new, more powerful state). In fact, the only real equality I have ever found in my (admittedly ameutur) study of the French Revolution was the equal fear of its citizens of the punishments for breaking the code of political correctness of their day as it was enforced quite brutally by the state.
Love to talk more about the "pursuit of happiness" part, but I've said too much already. Love to hear your thoughts on this though as I think the propensity of both parties towards a little too much of the French Revolution and a little too little of the American Revolution is a great reason to be purple instead of red or blue.
Chuck, your comments always add so little to the discussion. One off-topic Bible quote--thanks. And another post of pure meta commentary. Useless.
Equality has long been an American principle.
Indeed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
Prager: The left values equality above other values because it yearns for an America in which all people have similar amounts of material possessions.
LAGuy: This is socialism.
No it isn't. Or actually yes, it is, if the "similar amount" is close to zero.
Here's how I see the irreconcilability. The far left and the far right seem both to have some principles on which they each think democratic representative government should operate. Among these principles, some, no doubt, are subject to some reconciliation given some attention. Others perhaps not.
Those who fall in the so-called center are more difficult to describe (maybe there are several different descriptions, I don't know.)
I guess party platforms historically have been the vehicles where the principles of the party could be expressed.
I know this is rambling, but in the current (and past) presidential campaign the candidates seem to go straight to programatic plans or positions (the economy and taxes, defense, foreign policy, healthcare, education, immigration, etc) without any reference to underlying party governing principles to which the party's base would presumably subscribe. Liberal democrats and conservative republicans seem to think they know what their parties 'should' be standing for but I have no clue what conservative democrats, liberal republicans, and independents think the parties' principles are.
It seems to me that most of our voters casts their votes based on what has immediate appeal to them on the programatic issues of the campaigns or on which candidate they trust with little consideration given to the underlying governing philosophy they are selecting by voting for their candidate.
This afternoon I had to run a guy off the premises at my small business. He was strong arming my customers, coming up to them with a baseball bat, getting in their face, and saying "I NEED $5... I said I NEED $5".
When told him to get the hell off my property, he said - and this is a direct quote - "You just wait 'till Obama's in charge! I gonna own this place!"
I don't think Obama is going to expropriate my business and give it to this man. But HE thinks Obama will.
Simple post...
I still agree with Dennis Prager and think you wrong. So does every Conservative I personally know.
Prager does not understand that conservative now means sticking up for what hetero males want as opposed to what gays and feminists (and aging baby boomer hetero women) want.
He still thinks that conservative means being against premarital sex, which is something most hetero males want.
This insane misunderstanding of what the Republican electorate actually IS as compared to what he fantasizes it to be, is part of the reason why the Republicans are getting trounced now.
Prager supports the two party system where idiots engage in "cause linking" to support an oligarchy that doesn't care about them. Abortion and gay marriage are manufactured issues...designed to distract attention from the manner in which the Rs and Ds work together to keep power.
What single red blooded Republican voting male spends his time agonizing about how, if he made a mistake and got someone pregnant, that he should be made to pay $200,000 over 18 years for his mistake? Sure, he may say he is against abortion and for "responsibility for one's actions", but he does not agonize about how he would need to be so punished and his opposition to Roe vs Wade is more along the lines that Roe vs Wade only allows WOMEN to give up all responsibility for a baby leaving men to be totally under the thumb of the women and the courts.
Prager's kind of religious partisan doesn't get the distinction. He thinks we conservatives are all about being morally superior to the "left" even though sexual mores are not really related to individualism vs socialism and the majority of Republicans want religious nuts out of at least the heterosexual bedroom.
Queen Victoria was a prudish byatch the support of whom modern male conservatives need NOT be proud that their forefathers gave.
Heck...four times as many American men support polygamy than gay marriage...but do you see their desires being aired? Do you see too many men clamoring for their right to have 4 girlfriends/wives at the same time? You won't because the media czars have decreed it is not an issue. Besides the fact that journalists are mostly Marxists who hate heterosexual males, the media czars feel that gay rights is less controversial than hetero male rights.
Especially Fox News...which killed all discussion of polygamy in May by pretending the issue is one in the same as child abuse.
They have decreed that what heterosexual men want to talk about is not worth talking about.
Ditto for any discussion about radical feminism...such discussion died in the media 8 years ago when the czars decided there was no longer need for any debate there...and besides...Christians want lots of new laws to "protect women" don't they?
There is now an unholy alliance between Catholics like Sam Brownback and the Marxist feminist left to "protect women" (witness unconstitutional laws like IMBRA and VAWA, the Wikipedia articles of which are written and guarded by feminists).
Now let's get to what Prager REALLY meant...I think he is one of those demented souls who ignore what most heterosexual males think and assumes that Premarital Sex is STILL an issue and "his side" wants it to be illegal again (or at least socially unacceptable again).
Dig deep down into the argument of those who abuse the word "conservative" and you will often find someone who has this INSANE concept.
Earth to Prager: Military men and most red blooded males want premarital sex to remain on the menu. Conservativism, to us, means sticking up for what heterosexual men want as opposed to what gays and feminists want.
If anyone here pretends to be a conservative and also hates premarital sex, then SPEAK UP and show everyone where you are at.
Nobody will admire you for saying that Republicans need to be against premarital sex. That is just anti-male nonsense.
The moment any Republican politician openly condemns premarital sex, their poll numbers will fall like a rock.
They and like-minded bloggers should be honest and expose themselves...so nobody will have to pay attention to them anymore.
"Conservatives" who hate men need to take a one way ride to Iran.
The pro-male crowd is going to have to take over the Republican Party after the religious nuts and neocons are finally defeated in November.
Shockingly, however, you will see bloggers on the "right" claiming that the religious right will follow McCain's defeat with a move to retake control of hte Republican Party themselves.
Like the black knight in a Monty Python Comedy, these religious nuts have no idea that THEY are the problem within the Republican Party and they need to let the libertarians take over and sit themselves in the back of the room and take orders.
Because we grownup Republicans are not going to EVER give the religious right (American Taliban) any power at all again.
Anonymous has the correct general notion although most of the details used for examples are simply amusing. It is true as outlined in the original post that most voters only support a handful (part) of what the candidate they vote for represents. So we usually just go with the ones that seem the most important and in my case that has usually resulted in voting republican.
This year is one of the ugliest choices that I can recall and I am old. Even though I have very specific notions about what I think this country should be politically, realistically, my time here is short so whatever happens is not going to affect me personally. But I do believe this nation was established with great inspiration for the concept of individual liberty and any effort to further that inspiration is worthwhile in itself.
Somebody give me some hope that the numbers of individuals who even think libertarian notions like individual liberty are important will ever be large enough to make a difference.
Well, that was spirited. If I may add one point -- anonymous' claim that "four times as many American men support polygamy than gay marriage" can only be a reflection of smaller nuclear families. Any guy who grew up as the only male child with multiple sisters knows that once they outnumber you, they're going to be calling the shots. The harem fantasies are very pubescent.
Queensguy, you got it right. I've been married for 43 years and I find it difficult to understand why anyone would want more than one.
Post a Comment
<< Home